Marianne Michaela wrote:

complete joke to you? really? interesting...

In the GLAMOUR context, yes. If it's art nude which is a completely different style of photography and posing and the like which isn't being photographed for sexual purposes, that's a little different by my definition.

Clare-Alana wrote:

In the GLAMOUR context, yes. If it's art nude which is a completely different style of photography and posing and the like which isn't being photographed for sexual purposes, that's a little different by my definition.

Good evening Miss Facepalmer!

Clare-Alana wrote:

In the GLAMOUR context, yes. If it's art nude which is a completely different style of photography and posing and the like which isn't being photographed for sexual purposes, that's a little different by my definition.

ehm... there's a huge difference between a glamour pic and an artpic. how many glamourmodels have you heard that denied their shot being a glamourshot?

Marianne Michaela wrote:
ehm... there's a huge difference between a glamour pic and an artpic. how many glamourmodels have you heard that denied their shot being a glamourshot?

To be fair, Marianne, I think you may have misunderstood Clare-Alana's original post:-

Clare-Alana wrote:
Some people taking an open leg body shot which is obviously a sexualized a glamour style shot to call it ''art'' nude is a complete joke to me.

She's saying that it is a joke (ie. nonsensical) for somebody to try to take an open-leg glamour shot and pass it off as an 'art nude'.

So I think, actually, you two ladies are in agreement




Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Marianne Michaela wrote:

ehm... there's a huge difference between a glamour pic and an artpic. how many glamourmodels have you heard that denied their shot being a glamourshot?

I see her point here actually.  I've seen a great many models and photographers who will take a highly sexualised glamour style shot and then call it 'art nude'.  MANY.  It doesn't tend to be models who describe themselves as glamour models though, more models who haven't decided on a niche yet.

Mind you, I've also seen the opposite equivalent, where people assume that nudity = sex no matter what the styling of the shot.  See Exhibit A, self-proclaimed glamour model professes that nude models are all sluts and have no class: http://www.purestorm.com/forum/readThre … ?id=213364

Stefano Brunesci wrote:

To be fair, Marianne, I think you may have misunderstood Clare-Alana's original post:-


She's saying that it is a joke (ie. nonsensical) for somebody to try to take an open-leg glamour shot and pass it off as an 'art nude'.

So I think, actually, you two ladies are in agreement




Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Stefano has broken it down. Sorry if I wasn't clear in my explanation Marianne.

Arun Phillips wrote:

Good evening Miss Facepalmer!

Clare-Alana wrote:

Stefano has broken it down. Sorry if I wasn't clear in my explanation Marianne.

alright, I see. I have seen some artnudes that were with legs open, but it's just completely different then a glamour shot, and definitely different then porn. then again, plenty of guys jerk off at lingeriecatalogue pictures, and those are definitely not meant to be arrousing... so it all comes down to how people define porn

Fleur du Mal wrote:

I see her point here actually.  I've seen a great many models and photographers who will take a highly sexualised glamour style shot and then call it 'art nude'.  MANY.  It doesn't tend to be models who describe themselves as glamour models though, more models who haven't decided on a niche yet.

Mind you, I've also seen the opposite equivalent, where people assume that nudity = sex no matter what the styling of the shot.  See Exhibit A, self-proclaimed glamour model professes that nude models are all sluts and have no class: http://www.purestorm.com/forum/readThre … ?id=213364

But again we have the problem of who decides what is art? Who made the rules where a 'highly sexualised glamour style shot' cannot be art? I guarantee in 100 years time it will probably be considered as such.

JadeDRed wrote:

But again we have the problem of who decides what is art? Who made the rules where a 'highly sexualised glamour style shot' cannot be art? I guarantee in 100 years time it will probably be considered as such.

Morality is defined by the largest groups that will ultimately dominate demographically:

- Muslims will be 2+ billions within 20 years or so and the largest group on the planet, with the fundamentalists there having about 6 kids per woman vs. 2.2 for the whole planet.

- In the US religious sects of all denominations have 4+ kids per woman vs. 1.9 for the average.

All the mainstream monotheistic religions hate sex and the display of sexual please... so in 100 years we might be back to standards of 1500, not be "progressive".

It happened before: Homosexuality for promoted in Ancient Athens of all things... then homosexuals were killed/hanged publicly 500 years later as the Roman Empire crumbled and the idols were smashed in temples and 800 years of dark ages were inaugurated under the new Feudal System.

Scaling down is a biatch after a bubble, cultural, social or demographic, like we have now.

Just like the housing bubble all bubbles deflate and crash quickly.

Let's see what happens... and bring on the popcorn.

Synergy Visuals wrote:

Morality is defined by the largest groups that will ultimately dominate demographically:

- Muslims will be 2+ billions within 20 years or so and the largest group on the planet, with the fundamentalists there having about 6 kids per woman vs. 2.2 for the whole planet.

- In the US religious sects of all denominations have 4+ kids per woman vs. 1.9 for the average.

All the mainstream monotheistic religions hate sex and the display of sexual please... so in 100 years we might be back to standards of 1500, not be "progressive".

It happened before: Homosexuality for promoted in Ancient Athens of all things... then homosexuals were killed/hanged publicly 500 years later as the Roman Empire crumbled and the idols were smashed in temples and 800 years of dark ages were inaugurated under the new Feudal System.

Scaling down is a biatch after a bubble, cultural, social or demographic, like we have now.

Just like the housing bubble all bubbles deflate and crash quickly.

Let's see what happens... and bring on the popcorn.

Back into soapbox with you *prods with stick*

P.s. Art =/= morality.

Marianne Michaela wrote:
then again, plenty of guys jerk off at lingeriecatalogue pictures, and those are definitely not meant to be arrousing...

see though, most women think of lingerie as pretty things and guys think of lingerie as sexy, so from most guys point of view, lingerie is absolutely meant to be arousing

JadeDRed wrote:

But again we have the problem of who decides what is art? Who made the rules where a 'highly sexualised glamour style shot' cannot be art? I guarantee in 100 years time it will probably be considered as such.

Well yes indeed, there is that.  You could go with the argument that definiton depends on the intention of the creator.  Or that it comes down to the interpretation of the viewer.  And then you have the debate about whether intention or interpretation is more important.  For example, if you intend to create a piece of art, but a majority of your audience interprets it as not-art, glamour, porn, whatever, does that mean you're right, or they are?  Have you not succeeded in your intention because they don't understand your work?

Marianne Michaela wrote:

alright, I see. I have seen some artnudes that were with legs open, but it's just completely different then a glamour shot, and definitely different then porn. then again, plenty of guys jerk off at lingeriecatalogue pictures, and those are definitely not meant to be arrousing... so it all comes down to how people define porn

I don't by any means think that an open leg shot, and a graphic one one at that, is automatically porn. Erotic? Probably. Buy porn? Many times it isn't. There is no reason a graphic shot of either a woman's or a man's genitals cannot be art. If done properly, it can even transcend eroticism and simply be a great photo.

I have done artistic shots that were close ups of a vagina, that actually took a long time to light. I had it posted here until MM tightened it's rules. I had to remove it, and even one of the Mods who made me remove it said it was an amazing image, but it couldn't be posted.

I also did some erotic shots of a male model, because I felt it would be a good experience for me to do so. I did several body scapes of the model when he was fully erect. I can't post them here because of MM rules, but I have had the same positive reactions to those shots as well. It almost transcends being sexual because of the way it is shot and the lighting. Even the model was surprised at the images.

Rick Edwards wrote:

see though, most women think of lingerie as pretty things and guys think of lingerie as sexy, so from most guys point of view, lingerie is absolutely meant to be arousing

okay, but does that mean that all underwear pics are equally arrousing to men? there is still a noticable difference between something that is meant to be sexy and something that isn't meant to be sexy (but still is because there's a hot chick standing there in her undies)

Fleur du Mal wrote:
Well yes indeed, there is that.  You could go with the argument that definiton depends on the intention of the creator.  Or that it comes down to the interpretation of the viewer.  And then you have the debate about whether intention or interpretation is more important.  For example, if you intend to create a piece of art, but a majority of your audience interprets it as not-art, glamour, porn, whatever, does that mean you're right, or they are?  Have you not succeeded in your intention because they don't understand your work?

Art is defined by Genetic Fitness. For example across all cultures women are portrayed with big boobs and child bearing hips, and youth and slimness which denotes lack of previous pregnancies and a high fertility rate.

Facial beauty is in simplicity and symetricality.

Most visual art has the female as object since women's genetic fitness is judged visually, whereas male's genetic fitness is defined by their actions and deeds.

JadeDRed wrote:

But again we have the problem of who decides what is art? Who made the rules where a 'highly sexualised glamour style shot' cannot be art? I guarantee in 100 years time it will probably be considered as such.

Let's be realistic based on society and moralistic views.
A girl with heavy airbrushed make up in some suspenders and no panties with her legs open and a finger in her mouth, can seriously be taken into consideration for being ART nude? Something you'd look upon and feel something from other than a tingle in your crotch?
The difference between an art nude and porn is how an image makes you feel in my humble opinion. If a photo has the same effect on you that watching live sex will, then I think we can safely and obviously say it is considered something more pornographic than ''art''.
When I look at ART nudes I'm not even focusing on the sexual organs. I'm actually looking at the WHOLE picture. Because a good art nude photographer will think very carefully about the atmosphere, the lighting, the location, the posing. Stefano was telling me about how when models come to him and do strict ART nude modeling for which Stefano is very good at photographing, he will take caution in whether the model is making the picture look too 'sexualized' i.e. sticking out their chest, jutting their hip out and pouting etc...
To make an art nude is an art at that. So you see where I'm saying if you're going to get a busty chick in front of a camera to spread her legs...sure if it's a glossy mag like Playboy you're going to want to light the picture well etc...but you're only really focusing on the model...the sex.
Am I making sense?

SebastianW wrote:
Well, i'm glad it's different in USA.

In Sweden, once you're exposing yourself in Slitz, FHM or one of the even more hardcore "porn" magazines, you're dead to commercial swedish fashion. At least if people recognize you.

Thank god most people in fashion are gay men....

I suck cock all the time, I think it's the doing it for money on camera that can embarrass you if you don't own it.

Luckily there's a whole world out there that doesn't care.

That's a BOLD statement  .  .  .  I like it  .  .  . 

SOS

studio36uk wrote:
It takes a degree and years of experience to be called an architect;

You would have to build a few bridges to be called a bridge builder;

But suck just ONE c**k........... and you can guess what you will be called!
For ever! By anyone, and everyone, who knows you did it!

Studio36

word.

hell, people are still mad at Kim K, and she only sucked dick in her personal life.  It just happened to get leaked on the internet. 

in summation, porn is the devil.

Clare-Alana wrote:
If a photo has the same effect on you that watching live sex will, then I think we can safely and obviously say it is considered something more pornographic than ''art''.

it's unfortunate that people want to sanitize the body so much. 

Stefano was telling me about how when models come to him and do strict ART nude modeling for which Stefano is very good at photographing, he will take caution in whether the model is making the picture look too 'sexualized' i.e. sticking out their chest, jutting their hip out and pouting etc...

I enjoy his work.  He does what works for him.  However, he didn't invent art (or did he?) thus, the way he operates can not or should not be considered the "standard" for how an "art nude" is shot.

Clare-Alana wrote:

Let's be realistic based on society and moralistic views.
A girl with heavy airbrushed make up in some suspenders and no panties with her legs open and a finger in her mouth, can seriously be taken into consideration for being ART nude? Something you'd look upon and feel something from other than a tingle in your crotch?
The difference between an art nude and porn is how an image makes you feel in my humble opinion. If a photo has the same effect on you that watching live sex will, then I think we can safely and obviously say it is considered something more pornographic than ''art''.
When I look at ART nudes I'm not even focusing on the sexual organs. I'm actually looking at the WHOLE picture. Because a good art nude photographer will think very carefully about the atmosphere, the lighting, the location, the posing. Stefano was telling me about how when models come to him and do strict ART nude modeling for which Stefano is very good at photographing, he will take caution in whether the model is making the picture look too 'sexualized' i.e. sticking out their chest, jutting their hip out and pouting etc...
To make an art nude is an art at that. So you see where I'm saying if you're going to get a busty chick in front of a camera to spread her legs...sure if it's a glossy mag like Playboy you're going to want to light the picture well etc...but you're only really focusing on the model...the sex.
Am I making sense?

Many, many people claim to be disgusted by pornography, that would definitely considered something other than a 'tingle in the crotch'. Why is a 'tingle in the crotch' not a legitimate feeling in itself? You still haven't explained to me why sex can not be art yet your post is based solely on that.

misszara wrote:

I think that if you do porn it would be quite hard to get back into anything that wasn't porn because people can still access what you've done in the past. Just as it is with other decisions.

I think modelling would be more forgiving though, although it depends on so many other factors - how much porn there was, what style of modelling they'd like to do now etc. Miss Universe Pageants cannot have done any porn, so you obviously can't do something like that, but there are other sectors where they don't mind at all. Porn may also help to loosen someone up and show that they're confident about their body.
So I suppose it could go either way and it really depends on what you want to do.

I know many models who have dabbled in porn/fetish and still make 90% of income from nude art modeling. The reason that people claim you "can't go back" is people don't want to give up the bigger paying jobs. Very few people refuse to hire you just because they found some hard core images of you afloat on the internet.

Erik Hay wrote:
It seems to me that after you do porn it is hard to go back to just modeling, I have never done porn so i don't know for sure. What do you think? can you do both? and at what point do you become a pornstar?

Do what YOU want to do, and make it work for YOU.

BTW, yes, you can do both...with limitations on both sides.

Death of Field wrote:

I know many models who have dabbled in porn/fetish and still make 90% of income from nude art modeling. The reason that people claim you "can't go back" is people don't want to give up the bigger paying jobs. Very few people refuse to hire you just because they found some hard core images of you afloat on the internet.

I talked about the type of modelling in my post though. Of course they could do something like nude art modelling, but they would be restricted in other areas of modelling and not just because of lower pay or anything like that.

And there are a lot of people who will not work with you because of nude shots.

Gloria Budiman wrote:

Artistic nude is not porn.
Something is porn only when somebody uses that something to fulfill his/her own sexual desire.

going to +1 this and post it in my all boys camp dorm they think i am a porn star for doing nudes LOL

Clare-Alana wrote:
Some people taking an open leg body shot which is obviously a sexualized a glamour style shot to call it ''art'' nude is a complete joke to me.

I would agree with this statement to a point.

Though we cannot say that someone creating that image is NOT art to that person.. they might think that the ladies vulva is very "artful".. I cannot tell them it's not...
That would be like saying "I like pepperoni on my pizza" and then telling them "No you don't"...

But I do agree that an image shot like that would NOT be art to me.

JadeDRed wrote:
Many, many people claim to be disgusted by pornography, that would definitely considered something other than a 'tingle in the crotch'. Why is a 'tingle in the crotch' not a legitimate feeling in itself? You still haven't explained to me why sex can not be art yet your post is based solely on that.

Because people want to look [at porn] but not admit they are looking [at porn].

Like the old Chinese idiom, they: "Point to a deer, and call it a horse"

Studio36

Death of Field wrote:
Very few people refuse to hire you just because they found some hard core images of you afloat on the internet.

Some might even hire you because of it   

Studio36

Kawika Photography wrote:
No matter what has happened in the past, now is all that matters. Move forward as if and let the past land where it may, can't change it. GL

The OP has a total of two posts since he wrote this in 2011.  My guess is that he won't read your response or mine.

But I dig your position.  I think we need to stop persecuting people for their choices - simply because they don't align with our own choices.

Clare-Alana wrote:
Let's be realistic based on society and moralistic views.
A girl with heavy airbrushed make up in some suspenders and no panties with her legs open and a finger in her mouth, can seriously be taken into consideration for being ART nude? Something you'd look upon and feel something from other than a tingle in your crotch?
The difference between an art nude and porn is how an image makes you feel in my humble opinion. If a photo has the same effect on you that watching live sex will, then I think we can safely and obviously say it is considered something more pornographic than ''art''.
When I look at ART nudes I'm not even focusing on the sexual organs. I'm actually looking at the WHOLE picture. Because a good art nude photographer will think very carefully about the atmosphere, the lighting, the location, the posing. Stefano was telling me about how when models come to him and do strict ART nude modeling for which Stefano is very good at photographing, he will take caution in whether the model is making the picture look too 'sexualized' i.e. sticking out their chest, jutting their hip out and pouting etc...
To make an art nude is an art at that. So you see where I'm saying if you're going to get a busty chick in front of a camera to spread her legs...sure if it's a glossy mag like Playboy you're going to want to light the picture well etc...but you're only really focusing on the model...the sex.
Am I making sense?

So why can't sex be artistic? Who are we to decide that having sex, in front of a camera or not, cannot be an artistic statement? Why is sex, an intrinsic part of human life, somehow excluded from a universal means of expression?

If you prefer to make and view art that isn't sexual, that's fine. That art you make and view is beautiful, and complex, and diverse. But so is art that includes and/or references sexuality. Others will make and view art that expresses their views and experiences, and some of that will be sexual. But their art is just as valid as yours, and just as beautiful, and complex, and diverse, even if you don't understand and/or enjoy it. It should be respected as such.

Eleanor R wrote:
So why can't sex be artistic? Who are we to decide that having sex, in front of a camera or not, cannot be an artistic statement? Why is sex, an intrinsic part of human life, somehow excluded from a universal means of expression?

If you prefer to make and view art that isn't sexual, that's fine. That art you make and view is beautiful, and complex, and diverse. But so is art that includes and/or references sexuality. Others will make and view art that expresses their views and experiences, and some of that will be sexual. But their art is just as valid as yours, and just as beautiful, and complex, and diverse, even if you don't understand and/or enjoy it. It should be respected as such.

I agree!

Clare-Alana actually has great points and is spot on with classic fine art nudes (which is what I think she meant to detail).
Although all that she said was good, she and everyone else has to realize that there is a genre called "erotic art". some have been failures, okay most, but there are some Iv'e seen that are amazing.
Not only are they well conceptualized with lighting and composition but they also throw that sensual or sexualized feel in it BUT it's an Equal to the "nude art".
That in itself is The Art.
It's a level of fine-art nudes I'm looking to explore more of very soon.

I hope others like Clare-Alana can appreciate this side of Nude Art without tagging it Pornographic.

We all get our rocks off in different ways in different levels of beauty, heck some bikini glamour can be tickling the porn line if you're that horny... either way it's all personal and highly subjective on both sides of the photograph.

Art Silva Photography wrote:

I agree!

Clare-Alana actually has great points and is spot on with classic fine art nudes (which is what I think she meant to detail).
Although all that she said was good, she and everyone else has to realize that there is a genre called "erotic art". some have been failures, okay most, but there are some Iv'e seen that are amazing.
Not only are they well conceptualized with lighting and composition but they also throw that sensual or sexualized feel in it BUT it's an Equal to the "nude art".
That in itself is The Art.
It's a level of fine-art nudes I'm looking to explore more of very soon.

I hope others like Clare-Alana can appreciate this side of Nude Art without tagging it Pornographic.

We all get our rocks off in different ways in different levels of beauty, heck some bikini glamour can be tickling the porn line if you're that horny... either way it's all personal and highly subjective on both sides of the photograph.

I don't think you understood my point.

I tried to write out an explanation, but it will be super long. I'm going to take a few days to write it out the way I want it and then post it on Tumblr. I'll send you a link once I do.

Eleanor R wrote:
I don't think you understood my point.

I tried to write out an explanation, but it will be super long. I'm going to take a few days to write it out the way I want it and then post it on Tumblr. I'll send you a link once I do.

I think I got it, I was actually branching off to the general norms of art vs. porn.

I agree with you about art being in the creators eye and how certain levels and acts are Art to some and not to others and how we judge and label it is just a result of viewers taste.

Basically I was trying to state that the details and techniques it takes to create classic fine-art nudes can also be done for erotic nudes, so her views of what art is actually stretches further beyond the obvious traditional works.

Art Silva Photography wrote:

I think I got it, I was actually branching off to the general norms of art vs. porn.

I agree with you about art being in the creators eye and how certain levels and acts are Art to some and not to others and how we judge and label it is just a result of viewers taste.

Basically I was trying to state that the details and techniques it takes to create classic fine-art nudes can also be done for erotic nudes, so her views of what art is actually stretches further beyond the obvious traditional works.

Ah, ok.